Jessica Richardson v. Worcester, City of - Law Department (SPR 20251410)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 30, 2025 SPR25/1410 Michael Vigneux Records Access Officer Law Department City of Worcester 455 Main Street, Room 303 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Mr. Vigneux: I have received the petition of Jessica Richardson, of Massachusetts Family Institute, appealing the response of the City of Worcester (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 4, 2025, Ms. Richardson requested: copies of the following public records (including, but not limited to: files, documents, emails, other forms of written communication) in the possession of the Worcester Public Schools and the Worcester School Committee between July 1, 2024 and the date of this request: [1] All records that contain any of the following terms: “@educateusaction.org,” “EducateUS,” “Partners in Sex Education,” “@partnersinsexeducation.org,” “Advocates for Youth,” “@advocatesforyouth.org.” The City responded on March 17, 2025 and March 18, 2025, assigning the request reference number W066938-030425. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Ms. Richardson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1410, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Michael Vigneux SPR25/1410 Page 2 May 30, 2025 It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The City’s March 17th and March 18th Responses On March 17, 2025, the City stated, “[t]he City requires more time, up to an additional 15 business days as provided by statute, to complete the work necessary to fulfill this request. If responsive records become available before this timeframe, they will be provided as soon as possible.” In a second March 17, 2025 response, the City stated, “[a]n email search has been completed by the Worcester Public Schools using these parameters and a total of 935 email results have been returned. Are you able to narrow the scope of your request by limiting the key words or identifying a shorter timeframe? Please note that emails need to be reviewed page by page in order to redact any information that falls under privacy exemptions. To go through that amount of emails would take a significant amount of staff time.” In reply to the City’s request for modification, Ms. Richardson stated, “[w]e are not able to narrow the scope of our request by limiting the key words or identifying a shorter timeframe. However, you may omit any mass marketing emails sent from outside the district, provided those emails were not forwarded or replied to by WPS staff, representatives, or members of the school committee. If a mass marketing email has been forwarded or replied to, it would still be responsive to our request.” On March 18, 2025, the City stated, “[p]lease note that the City will need an extended period of additional time to review 935 email messages one by one.” When Ms. Richardson replied, “[w]e have noted your 3/17 message in which you state that the city may need up to an additional 15 days to complete the work necessary to fulfill this request. We are in agreement with this time extension,” the City responded again on March 18, 2025 and stated, “I do not anticipate the work will be completed by that time. We have limited staff and resources for an unrealistic request of this nature.” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Richardson states, “[a]s of today, even though we did ultimately allow far beyond the 25 business days… we have not received any further

Michael Vigneux SPR25/1410 Page 3 May 30, 2025 communication… We have also not received any documents responsive to our request.” Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Ms. Richardson’s request was submitted on March 4, 2025, and the City has not provided responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the City must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Richardson with a response to the request provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Richardson may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Michael Vigneux SPR25/1410 Page 4 May 30, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jessica Richardson Janice E. Thompson, Esq.